Bijla Singh

Who is the questions directed to? My post was strictly about meanings of siharis and their purpose not pronunciation. Post your questions about siharis in Rehraas Sahib.

Gurbani grammar applies to Gurbani only. I do not know whether Bhai Gurdas Ji has written his works according to Gurbani viyakaran or some other but it is not a rule that when "Meh" or "Antar" appear the sihari on previous word disappears because sihari has different meanings. Sometimes sihari appears on words that are feminine gender such as "Bhagtee", "Simartee" or "Moorat". If you post from Gurbani, I can discuss it further. I looked through teeka of Kabits and the words appear as ਰਿਦ ਅੰਤਰਿ. I do not have much time to look through the rehatnamas but I hardly doubt rehatnamas are written according to Gurbani viyakaran. Book of Gurbani viyakaran is by Bhai Randhir Singh who started AKJ. Other person is Bhai Randhir Singh research scholar. This is usually how they are distinguished. I do not have a functioning scanner nor the time to scan it but this book is one of the best. I have not come across any evidence to prove that Sarabloh was compiled by Guru Sahib. There are saroops of Aad Guru Granth Sahib and Dasam Granth that were compiled prior to 1699 but not a single copy exists of Sarabloh of that time. Also, had this been the work of Guru Sahib, it would've been part of Dasam Granth. Bhai Mani Singh Ji would've put it in the same granth. Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha states that this granth is the work of Sukha Singh. If you have any evidence proving it to be the work of Guru Sahib, please present it. Guru Rakha

Post in Gurmukhi so I can understand your question. Sarbloh Granth is not the work of Guru Sahib.

Dalsingh Ji, I agree that Sikhs today are nowhere close to the footsteps of our ancestors and that is exactly why we are suffering all over the world. Without uplifting ourselves we cannot ever have a country. The power and inspiration our ancestors had was directly drawn from practicing gurmat and Gurbani. As long as Sikhs do not abide by Gurbani and do not start asking Guru Sahib for Raj they will never get it. They can setup as many committees and commissions as they want to get justice for 84 from Indian courts or UN, they will never get it. Rather they are insulting the very image and high ideals of the Khalsa Panth. Sikhs need to start acting like Sikhs if they want to rule. When Bhai Lalo Ji asked Guru Nanak Sahib in Eminabad about the future of the Panth, Guru Sahib replied, “If they act together they will rule not only Hindostan but other countries as well but when they start fighting among themselves they will suffer in their own homeland.” The very root of disunity is our own ego and not following hukam of Guru Sahib. Sikhs in 80s have sacrificed the same way as they did in 18th century. Singhs were boiled alive, scalped etc and their dead bodies were hung on trees but they never uttered a single word in pain. Sikhs just 20 years ago have shown that sacrifices of 18th century are not just history and one time occurrence. Power of Naam and Gurbani will continue to exist. Try experiencing it yourself and you will see my point. Also, try looking elsewhere for real type of Sikhs not just those who look like one outwardly. I do not believe majority will lack knowledge about Gurbani and Gurmat in Khalistan because education system will not be the same as we see today. Prior to 1947, Sikh schools and colleges always taught Gurbani meanings to students and this will be implemented again. Besides, when correct version of history and Gurmat in purest form is taught from the beginning our future generations will be better educated. There will be an organized internal structure to manage the Gurdwaras and their roles in the Panth. Granthis will have to be educated and well versed in Gurbani. Sikhs have had disagreements in the past and will so in the future as it is human nature but that is why Gurmatta was implemented so that all can sit together and resolve the matter. Guru Sahib ruled Anandpur Sahib, Amritsar Sahib and all the other cities they founded. So how to really manage and run the country has been shown to us by Guru Sahib. No other religious community has had such an example and if others can run their countries then what is stopping us. Nothing is impossible.

Your post tells me that neither you have understanding of gurmat ideals nor how Sikhs have dealt with same issues in the past. Punjabi mindset can only influence someone when they don't practice gurmat. Were Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh not Punjabis? I don't need to watch a documentary to learn how to debate with non-Sikhs as I already know how Guru Sahib debated Siddhas, Yogis, Qazis, Pandits, Buddhists and Jainis. We already have a perfect example in our own history. Pakistan problem is not a good example since Islam and Gurmat are different paths and present different humanitarian principles and values. If you take some time to study Gurmatta and how it was implemented in 18th century it would answer your questions. Sikhs will need to sit down and resolve some of the major issues and controversies but there is no divine law that states that Sikhs will have to have one maryada if they want their own country. Politics has its own place in Sikhi. Comparing Khalistan to an Islamic country is simply irrational. Whenever Muslims ruled using Quran it devastated the country but when Sikhs ruled using Gurbani it brought prosperity. Sikhs ruled in 18th and 19th century and I don't need to state how good it was for the people. No civil war broke out. Even when Misals started fighting with each other, it did not create havoc in the country nor did any citizen suffer. I am not claiming everyone will be perfect in Khalistan but assuming a civil war will break out over religious differences is simply a conjecture. When was the last time civil war broke out over Raag Maala or Mool Mantar? Are Punjabis and most Sikhs perfect these days? No. Is situation in Punjab any good? No. Then why isn't civil war breaking out there? Your assumptions do not have any credibility. There is not a single incident in history when a religious gursikh misused his political power to suppress non-Sikhs or issued a Dharam Yudh against non-Sikhs. We see such incidents in Islamic history but not in Sikh history. There has yet to be a Ahmad Barelvi or Sheikh Sirhindi in Sikhi. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Baghel Singh, Akali Phoola Singh and other were strict Amritdharis but they were far above Punjabi mindset. Sikhs like Anokh Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Avtar Singh Brahma, Gurbachan Singh Manochahal did not misuse their power to suppress Hindus nor did they ever refuse to listen to others. Sant Jarnail Singh always talked openly and answered logically. He didn't shoot anyone who didn't agree with him. We need to reflect on Sikh history not Pakistan for solving our issues. Sikh history has proved beyond the doubt that Sikhs have never caused a civil war over religious issues. Gurmatta is the place where all can sit together, present their ideas and opinions and then reach the best solution. Only Sikhs have proved how a minority can rule over majority without any civil war in the state not once but many times.

Declaring independence and outlining every policy of the nation are two different things. Looking at the movement of 80s, it was made clear by the leader (Sant Ji) that he did not want a separate state but more autonomy. I fully agree that Sikhs need to get serious and before they start discussing their future, they need to learn and reflect on their past. Movement of 80s suffered from same causes as others. We suffered the same way in countless other movements and Babbar Akali movement is like a mirror image of the 80s from birth to death. Sikhs do not practice gurmat, do not educate themselves about their history and put little to no effort in unity and thinking about solutions. Hence, no serious discussion on Khalistan, Sikhs in general don’t even discuss propagation of gurmat but I am still optimistic. Once Sikhs realize what needs to be done and get serious there will be no stopping them. I believe Sikhs have more examples to assist them to form and run Khalistan than any other community ever had in the history of the world. I am from USA. What is there to see in UK?

It depends on the type of government we setup. As long as the position and the decisions made are purely political and in the benefit of the country, there is no reason to not appoint a non-Sikh as long a he is better qualified than others. Please think about it logically. Did USA have any such document prior to independence or India prior to 1950? Sikhs have Gurmat principles and past history which clearly describe how citizens should be treated. As far as how the country is run depends on time and place. Each situation and crisis demands different action which cannot be written down. If we write something today it may not be valid in next 10 years. Policies change over time. How we deal with other countries depend on their policies and attitude towards us. It depends on viewpoint. If we start thinking negatively then the conclusion would be that neighboring countries will attack us and drop nuclear bombs on us. But this is highly unlikely. Countries don’t grow economically by attacking others and taking over. This is the age of business. We will need access to sea port and we will open our hand in business to both sides. Whichever gives us better deal will get out business. They will make money in return. Pakistan and India being sworn enemies of each other will try to compete against each other to win our business. I hardly doubt they will join together against us. Both sides will feel safe knowing that a Sikh country stands between them. Smaller states are easier to run and maintain. There are many ways to deal with alcohol problem. Do you want a list of them? Cutting the supply would be the first step. Then banning it in certain cities like Amritsar, Kartarpur etc. Preaching, educating, imposing heavy taxes on alcohol, restricting employment to alcohol users etc. There is no limit to possibilities. All will have equal rights. No reservation system or jaziya. Pick one country and explain all of the above in details. I bet you cannot do that. Then why expect us to explain about a country that doesn’t even exist yet? We can certainly come up with policies after independence. Again, policies change over time. Assuming Pakistan is friend with us and we write down our policies but in 10 years it becomes our enemy we will change our policy. Not a single country had all of the requirements done that you are asking Khalistanis to fulfill. Country comes first then its policies. We can certainly think about it and come up with ideas but expecting a definite position and official documents is irrational.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh was raised as a Sikh and he practiced Gurmat most of his life. His grandfather and father never admitted anyone in their misal until the person was an Amritdhari. Sada Kaur and Sahib Singh Bedi were great gursikhs who greatly influenced Ranjit Singh. But when he started falling for brahmins he brought downfall of not only the kingdom but to the panth as well. He stopped practicing Gurmat, started drinking wine, taking opium and practicing polygamy. He encouraged other Sardars working for him to do the same. Most of them started staying away from the Granthis, Akalis and Gurmat principles. So the question “was Ranjit Singh a Sikh” is very vague because he wasn’t always a Sikh and wasn’t always a non-Sikh. This also proves that as soon as he fell under the trap of dogras and went away from Gurmat he lost his kingdom and this also lead to degradation of gurmat among most of the Sikhs. Had he been a shraabi kabaabi no Sikh misal or Sikh Sardar would’ve helped him in any manner nor would have any Sikh accepted him as a Maharaja. Define position. Any person who is not a practicing amritdhari cannot have the privilege to be in Panj Pyare nor can he/she be head of any Sikh society, Gurdwara etc. My assumption is that lower positions of the government would be open to all. It depends on type of government. Any person whether Hindu, Christian, Muslim or an atheist can live in Khalistan but higher positions such as Panj Pyare and jathedar will only be for Sikhs (qualified ones). One doesn’t become a Sikh by simply going to gurdwara and performing Sikh ceremonies. Sehajdharis (not monay) like Sindhis have been performing Sikh ceremonies for centuries but they very well know that they cannot have any leadership in the Panth since the leadership can only go to those who strictly adhere to the faith. We have seen how majority of the Hindus adopted Sikh appearance just to share the fruit of rulership but when the British took over they all left. Monay became Sikhs when Banda Singh ruled Punjab but they all left as soon as he was martyred. I have no doubt that many monay will start keeping Sikh appearance when Panth starts rising again but most will remain kachay pillay. It also happened in the 80s when many looked like jujharoos to share the booty of bank loots but they were the ones to cause most damage to the movement. This is exactly how Babbar Akali movement was destroyed. So I will never agree to give the leadership of the Panth in the hands of anyone but a Sikh because Panj Pyare as leader of the Panth means Guru Sahib himself is the leader. Guruship was given to Khalsa Panth so that dictatorship doesn’t take hold of the panth and Sikhs don’t become “slave” of one person like Mullah in Islam, Pope in Christianity and Lama in Buddhism. As long as Sikhs don’t learn this important lesson they will continue to suffer. Being a non-Sikh doesn’t mean being inferior to Sikhs. One who isn’t a Sikh isn’t inferior or low life. It is very simply: he is not a Sikh. Gurbani, Vaars and Rehatnamas tell us clearly who a Sikh is. Monay for some reason get offended and make false assumptions. It is not narrow minded thinking to tell someone who doesn’t practice Gurmat that they are not a Sikh. It is neither insulting nor offensive. They are equal human being and God still loves them. One who doesn’t live by Quran isn’t a Muslim, one who doesn’t follow Bible isn’t a Christian and one who doesn’t live by teachings of the Gurus isn’t a Sikh. This is a separate topic so I suggest we keep it out. I am not a moderator so don’t worry about me banning you (not that I have ever done that).

The books I mentioned including Prof. Sahib Singh's book teach you the meanings of maatran not how to pronounce them. Bhai Randhir Singh explains the meaning of each aunkar and sihari and why they don't appear at some places.

Absolutely not. Then it wouldn't be a Sikh state. One who practices Gurmat is a Sikh. There is no such thing as "born as a Sikh" or "non-practicing Sikh". Badal, Tohra, Barnala, Kairon, Boota Raam, Talwandi, Zail Raam, and now Manmohan have proved what "non-practicing Sikhs" can do for their kaum. At least Jinnah was loyal to his community. He wasn't a sell-out. Leadership of the Panth can only be invested in Panj Pyare otherwise the current state of the Panth speaks for itself.

If you really want to learn Gurbani viyakaran then I'd recommend Gurbani Dian Laggan Matran Di Vilakhanta by Bhai Randhir Singh which is much better than work of Prof. Sahib Singh. Prof. Ji didn't follow grammar rules at many places in Gurbani. Also read Gurbani Viyakaran Saral Bodh by Joginder Singh Talwara and work of Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha. These provide correct interpretation of Gurbani according to Gurmat.

The inscription plus many more pictures are included in Jeevan Chrittar Guru Nanak Dev Ji by Dr. Trilochan Singh. It is the best biography I have ever read. Like GPS said, these inscriptions are found in Baghdad where Guru Sahib met Behlol Dana who remained a Sikh for at least 30 years after Guru Ji's departure of Baghdad. Qazi Rukandeen accompanied Guru Ji from Baghdad to Punjab. Anandachariya's poem is based on one of the inscriptions he saw, picture of which is also included in the book. If Muslims really wish to refute Guru Ji's visit then at least they can allow Sikh scholars to examine all the facts. They allow other non-Muslims to make documentaries then surely they can allow Sikhs for the purpose of clearing the "allegation" against Mecca.

Here is Guru Sahib's own handwriting.

A Sikh must marry a Sikh only not because of hate towards non-Sikhs but because of having sangat in daily life, a partner that would encourage you to get up at amrit vela and do naam abhiyaas with you. One Sikh is a Sikh but two are sangat. Sangat is essential in spiritual path of life. Marriage in Gurmat is based on ideals of union between soul and God which is why it is called "Anand" meaning a blissful union. Once one becomes a Sikh there remains no such thing as "religion is a personal thing". I don't even know what the heck this means. It simply destroys our unity and boundaries of a cohesive society. Panth comes first and "personal thing" means nothing since in order to become a Sikh one must give up their mind and manmat. We follow Guru's hukam which leaves no room for personal thinking. Rehatnamas are clear that a Sikh must marry a Sikh, do gurbani vichaar and raise their kids in Gurmat way of life. Such is not possible without marrying a Sikh. Again, most important purpose of marriage is to obtain sangat.

Kirtam names are not worthless but they only praise one quality of Waheguru. Gurmantar is complete and superior to all other names. Guru Sahib gave us gurmantar because it is superior otherwise there was no need to invent a new word just for the heck of it. All names are not equal. There is not a single pankti in Gurbani that supports this notion. Bhai Gurdas Ji calls gurmantar superior to all other names of all yugs.

Following is an extract taken from Sacha Guru by Giani Udham Singh. The book was written in Punjabi and the extract has been translated. Although the entire book is full of Gurmat knowledge and worth reading, the following passage really stuck out to me, which I thought would be worth sharing. Translation Begins---------------- In Gurbani many names like Raam, Ishwar, Allah, Govind etc appear but word ‘Waheguru’ appears very seldom and mostly in Bhatt Sweayas. From this many start raising question on the power and superiority of gurmantar by saying that the Gurus did not mention such a word in their own bani and what makes it so special? Naam is of two types: Jaati and Safaati. Jaati refers to name of the person while Safaati refers to his action, doing, character or praise. For example, take the name Kishan Singh Halvayee. While Kishan Singh is jaati name meaning his original name; Halvayee is his safaati name meaning it is his profession or something he does. If Kishan Singh starts another profession of say gold then his name would be Kishan Singh Suniara (goldsmith) or if he takes the profession of a clerk then his name would be Kishan Singh Clerk but the original name (Kishan Singh) would not change. Similarly, God’s name is Raam because He is omnipresent, Narayan because He is present in everyone’s heart, Govind because He dispels darkness (GO = darkness, Vind = Light), Gopal because He is the supporter of the earth so on and so forth. These words explain one character of God and praise Him in one aspect only. But there comes one instance when nothing remains and everything created gets absorbed back in God. Then God is not Raam, Govind, Gopal or Narayan anymore so all the kirtam names also vanish. But He is even then Waheguru because He remains Wondrous, glorious and source of the light (knowledge or gyan). Therefore, while all other names do not remain valid, only Waheguru remains valid. Take another example of a faithful wife who praises her husband by saying that her husband is nice, smart, well-mannered, handsome, moral, ethical etc., she is describing one particular quality of her husband but if she says that her husband is full of virtues and complete then she is praising the husband in entirety, directly and fully. Such is the nature of word Waheguru. Waheguru Shabad is the source of all just like all canals and rivers submerge in the sea and all rays of light merge back in the sun, all the names merge back in Waheguru. Each kirtam or safaati name praises only one character of God while the word Waheguru is the original and praises God directly not just one character. It is not to be concluded that meditating upon other names is wrong. One can definitely meditate upon other names but such action is not abhiyaas of gurmantar (practice of gurmantar). Guru Sahib has instructed Sikhs to practice gurmantar only. Since only Guru Sahib has the right to give this mantar to a disciple, it has been kept secret in Gurbani. Guru Sahib passed on this right to Panj Pyare. No one else has this right nor does anyone have the right to change it to “Wahegur” and “Wahguru” etc. A Sikh follows the instructions of Guru Sahib and he must practice this mantar only. Bhai Gurdas Ji explains its importance in one of his Kabits as follows: One wanders to 68 pilgrimage and remains in meditation for for yugs on Kailash Mountain. One spends countless lives hanging upside down and even burns his body in fire. One performs one hundred thousand Asvmedh Yagg in Kurkshetra. What one obtains from all this can be obtained by saying “Waheguru” just once. Translation Ends------------------------- I apologize for poor translation. Guru Rakha

It does not matter on which site your articles are posted as long as the content is not altered. In my opinion, it is a good thing that your articles (Gurmat oriented) are being posted on such sites you probably would not even visit. Even if you disagree with sikhchic, your articles being posted there means something good is being propagated there. As far as you are concerned your purpose of writing is being accomplished. Again, as long as the text is not altered you should not worry. You have the right to ask them to remove your articles if you wish but I don’t think it is necessary because after all, the message is getting to them. Even if someone misinterprets what you write or disagrees with your writings, you should not bother. For example, I once wrote a 10 page article on Sikh Rehat Maryada to counter Muslim fanatics but one person copied only first section of the article on a website and started discussing it. I did not bother to argue with them to clarify or tell them that they did not have the entire article. Another person copied one of my articles, made it part of his article and gave no credits. Since the content was not changed I did not bother. My purpose was to write something good about Sikhi not to argue with others on the topic. Unless someone engages in vichaar, I am not up for explaining anything. This is my approach. If someone criticizes me in a rebuttal I try to counter that in writing. I do not and suggest you also do not waste any time by going to websites and try to argue. Those who wish to clarify and want to know more will contact you. Always put your name on the article and link to your blog or your contact info at the end of the article so everyone knows where and how to find you and where such articles are posted originally. Gurbani says there is a cure for everything except for a foolish person so don’t waste time in arguing with them or explaining yourself. Study Gurbani to know the meaning of Waheguru’s Will or Hukam. Guru Rakha

Sehajdhari is someone who keeps hair intact and performs all of the Sikh ceremonies and believes only in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. He slowly adopts Khalsa lifestyle. Those who have cut their hair are not classified as sehajdharis since cutting hair is a bajjar kurehat. Whether a Sikh or not, he who cuts hair is a bajjar kurehatee and will be punished accordingly. Non-Sikhs, monay, patit etc have no exceptions. Gurmat principles are universal and apply to everyone.

I am calm. I do not know which part of my post made you think otherwise. Kapoor Singh was never selected as the leader of the Sikhs otherwise he would have raised the demand for a Sikh country. He tried to convince the Akali leaders but they did not listen to him. I do not think there was anyone in the Sikh community who could outsmart him. He clearly states that the British sent messages (through him) to the Akali leaders that if they raise their demand for a separate country, the British would accept it and this will get them all the area they want to be undivided but if they wish to side with one party then Punjab will have to be divided based on population. British could not force Khalistan on the Sikhs. British wanted Sikhs to raise this demand so it would look like it came from the Sikhs. This is clear enough for me that the British did not ignore the Sikhs and their right to rule. British wanted Sikhs to have a separate country and the opportunity was given but they refused and instead sided with Congress. Dr. Kirpal Singh completely ignores this side of the events. It is foolish to think British had already carved it out and was giving it to the Sikhs. Rather the opportunity was given and British was willing to listen to Sikhs more than Hindus and Muslims in this matter. Alas, it was not meant for Khalsa to have a country given to them. Surely, one day we will have it.

How is it clear? You are contradicting yourself here. If Sikhs were never offered any political sovereignty then why was Akali Dal included in the meetings? Why was it involved in negotiation? There would’ve been two parties only unless you believe Akali Dal and Congress both were representing the Indian side which is not true. If the British had made up their mind to partition Punjab based on majority then involving Akali Dal makes no sense. What were Sikhs beings offered then? It is clear that involvement of the Akali Dal alone proves Sikhs had a say in the matters of Punjab. If Sikhs had demanded a separate country and put their plan correctly they would’ve got it. As Kapoor Singh says the British conveyed this message secretly not officially. British could not give a country if the Sikhs never demanded it. Dr. Kirpal Singh states that the British instigated the Muslims to cause riots but is there any evidence of it in British official records? No. Kapoor Singh was involved in the politics. Hence he knows the inside of it. Again, why is Kapoor Singh lying and why did Tara Singh and Baldev Singh regret their decision afterwards? But why? Both had no reasons if Sikhs had no power and no say in the matters (according to you). Congress appealing to Sikhs to trust them is proof enough that Sikhs had political recognition and could carve out their country. If the majority rule was the only option then there was no reason for Congress and the League to lure the Sikhs because Punjab was going to be divided according to majority population and Sikhs were not majority on either side. He may have accepted decision to side with India rather than Pakistan as fair but the decision itself was not fair to the Sikhs and he never agreed to it. Sant Sipahi simply wants to wash off Tara Singh’s stains of betrayal and turn their first editor to a “great leader”.

Easy to say no proof exists because it requires no effort on your part but explain to me why Kapoor Singh is lying and why Baldev Singh was called to England and then sent message from Churchill to extend his stay two more days after Nehru had left? Jinnah offered a sub-state and Nehru and Gandhi’s statements were in response to that. The only difference was that Jinnah was offering more and in writing whereas Congress was not. If majority rule was applied to Punjab (initially) just like other states then why were these leaders doing their best to win over the Sikhs? Sikhs had some power in Punjab and whichever side they picked could get more area. Sikhs could stand strong on their grounds about a separate country but they did not. They had no plan and no knowledge about running a country. Sikhs had done so much for the British and British wanted to reward them with their own state (no matter how small). Baldev Singh admitted his mistakes after he was kicked out of his position after Nehru’s death. So did Tara Singh. Dr. Kirpal Singh himself admits that not all documents are available and many are kept in safe for at least 50 years. Tara Singh acted on emotions. His knowledge was meager compared to Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi. Nonetheless, the story is true otherwise why would Nehru and Gandhi offer the same to Sikhs? I will get the names of the books soon.

British did offer a separate country to the Sikhs and also offered to assist Sikhs run it. I have read thesis and other books of Dr. Kirpal Singh. His sole objective is to convince Sikhs that they made a good choice by siding with India and they belong to India because they were never offered anything by the British. He played a puppet role for his Indian masters. This way he not only undermined the distinct recognition Sikhs had but also rejected the fact that Sikhs deserve their own country. His books were written when Punjabi Sooba agitation was going on premise of which was that Hindu leaders were going back on their words and Sikhs had made a huge mistake by refusing offers of the British. His work is not unbiased. Master Tara Singh and Baldev Singh greatly regretted their mistakes at the end of their lives. They openly claimed that they should’ve taken the British offer. Dr. Kirpal Singh also states that the records of meetings held between Indian leaders and the British are kept secret for 50 years so he did not have access to them at all. Baldev Singh going to England is the clear cut proof that Sikhs were recognized as a separate party. Dr. Kirpal Singh never thinks about the fact that no government would give any option to its state to cede from the union. Does Indian government agree to this proposal today? No. Would USA let Texas cocede? No. Then there is no point in expecting Jinnah to let Sikhs have their own sub-state (which he put in writing) in Pakistan and also give the option to leave whenever they want. It makes no sense. Punjab was exception to the rule of division by majority since Sikhs were living there and the British were willing to get them together in one area where they would make a majority and carve out that area for them but stupid “Sikh” leaders could not get their minds straight about their future plan. Dr. Kapoor Singh is more reliable than Dr. Kirpal Singh since he was an eye witness and had first hand account. I have at least three books written prior to 1947 on a separate Sikh country and word Khalistan is clearly mentioned in them. Regardless, Sikhs deserve to rule and deserve a separate country be it Sikhistan, Khalsa Raj, Azad Punjab, Republic of Punjab or Khalistan.

Conversation between the soul and Waheguru could only take place in Sachkhand. Guru Sahib doesn't say that the conversation took place at Hemkunt. I think much more research needs to be done in this area and Sikhs must find out more about Raam and sort it out. We can move to discussing Vaars if you wish and you can start posting. I think teekas of Bhai Veer Singh and Pandit Narain Singh can be used together. Of course I like the former better. Guru Rakha

Chatanga ji, do you mean to say there is no logic to guru’s path? When we disagree on certain viewpoints are we not using logic? Re-read my post carefully. Established traditions have logics and reasoning behind them. I am not trying to find logics behind miracles or Guru’s doings (such is an impossible feat) but established way of life. Gurbani is the logic against which everything else has to be measured. Gurmat is not a blind path. Perhaps you can explain why other Gurus did not write autobiography. Tradition was not a mandatory requirement for one to write autobiography but according to this particular tradition (if it is true) one wrote an account of past life. Only Dr. Pannu can explain this. If we can understand (not reach the end of) Gurbani and its grammar and some find 10 different meanings of it then why can’t we understand Dasam Granth and find 10 different interpretations? Some took Hemkunt in literal sense while others in metaphorical sense. Post the pauri you want to discuss. Post the next one only after we are done with the first one. I think I have already explained the purpose of the pauri you posted. Bhai Sahib is explaining other religious beliefs as is confirmed by Bhai Veer Singh Ji. Gurbani does not support age decreasing with yug. GPS ji, the article is clear that Pandu stayed in the forest and saw his sons growing up in the forest not at Hemkunt. Pandu became disciple of siddhas who stayed in the forests and refused to take him to mountains. Let me pose another question; is Guru Sahib really endorsing the view that a woman can have children by simply invoking some deity without sexual union? Did Guru Sahib believe in this? Simply not which proves that writing myths and believing in myths are two different things. I don’t think there is any need to argue more over this. Guru Rakha

Bundha ji, I am not comparing Guru Sahib with a Buddhist. An example is given to relate it to something not to compare. Like I said, it was Dr. Pannu who said this in his lecture. I am not advocating it. Metaphor is not a lie. Story of the womb makes much more sense because even a Hindu who has read Mahabharta will tell you that Pandu never went to Hemkunt. You can easily provide evidence and refute the article and I will read it with an open mind. If you think everything in Dasam Granth is true in literal sense then give me date of birth and death of every single avtar, devi, demon as well as characters named in chrittars and 24 avtars. Then you must also believe that chrittar of Anandpur is an actual event related to Guru Gobind Singh Ji's life and all other chrittars are true and not fiction stories. War explained in Chandi Di Vaar is also a myth and never happened. Guru Ji's purpose of writing was much different than simply translating and preaching them to be true. Such metaphors exist in Gurbani and Vaars and same stories have been used to explain divine teachings. Doesn't mean such stories are true. My simple point is that different scholars interpret Dasam Granth differently. If one doesn't make sense we should find another one. You may disagree with something that makes sense to me and that is fine. We all have different viewpoint. There is no end to study, research and interpretations as long as we don't refute authenticity of the writings.